Dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden...

Page 2 of 16 First 1234 ... Last

  1. Quote Originally Posted by Jumper View Post
    Nothing in the article you posted has anything to do with science or the scientific method. I have zero problem with someone having their own personal religious beliefs. Great. But it is not science. I don't have a problem with classes on religion. However, religion is not science and, therefore, does not have a place in a science class. I would ask many of those that want to teach creationism or intelligent design in science classes, which religion's creation stories they would like to include? Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Ancient Mayan, Aztez, etc, etc, etc. Religious beliefs, Christian "creationism" for example, cannot be tested by the scientific method, so are not science.

    Religion is religion, science is science.
    Maybe you should learn to read then! I said in the first sentence or two that "religion" had nothing to do with it, and yes, I gave plenty of science. Until you can answer the scientific questions I posed, don't bother dismissing it. Creationism is not a religion, it's an explanation of the observed universe.


  2. Quote Originally Posted by EESCHMan View Post
    Here, here!

    "Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. Order emerges from disorder all the time. Snowflakes form, trees grow, and embryos develop, etc"
    lol, read it again! All your examples have a cause. they are all seeded or they wouldn't form smart guy. Thanks for providing even more evidence! Nothing can cause itself.
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by DR.D View Post
    Really? Science actually DOES support Creationism, big time. Read and learn:

    Does science support the existence of God?
    "As far as the experts Strobel chose, he is, frankly, misleading about their qualifications. While he touts that all of the people he interviews are "doctorate-level", he doesn't mention that most of them are NOT doctorates in the fields they were interviewed! Rather, most of them have doctorates in philosophy or theology, and perhaps undergraduate degrees in a related science. But he is clearly leading the reader to believe he has picked doctorate-level experts in the fields they are being interviewed for, but, with a few exceptions, they are not. For each expert, Strobel spends at least a few paragraphs extolling the qualifications of his expert, while conveniently neglecting to mention that their doctorate is not in the field of discussion."

    That's what I call good science! (Not! in Borat Accent)

  4. Quote Originally Posted by EESCHMan View Post
    Why is it that the Catholic Church accepts evolution as well as "most" Christians?
    I explained that too. Don't follow the church's opinion necessarily. Stop getting Truth and religion confused! God is God, no organization needed, period.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by mmowry View Post
    Well these so called transitional species are dead so that takes me back to my previous point.Were they transitional or just strange reptiles?


    Where do you get that most Catholics and Christians in general believe in evo?This whole debate can be boiled down to this if one believes there is no Creator (God) then there must be another way to explain creation.

    So everything that is came from what wasnt?That doesnt seem logical to me.It takes MUCH more faith to believe in evo than to believe in The Creator.
    the problem here is that 1 side is offering an answer, and the other isnt.

    scientists- not sure how the universe was created
    religious tards- god created it

    personally, i am MUCH more comfortable with the scientific lack of explanation than something that is simply made up in a book.

    btw there are dozens of creation stories...what makes the christian one correct???
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by EESCHMan View Post
    "As far as the experts Strobel chose, he is, frankly, misleading about their qualifications. While he touts that all of the people he interviews are "doctorate-level", he doesn't mention that most of them are NOT doctorates in the fields they were interviewed! Rather, most of them have doctorates in philosophy or theology, and perhaps undergraduate degrees in a related science. But he is clearly leading the reader to believe he has picked doctorate-level experts in the fields they are being interviewed for, but, with a few exceptions, they are not. For each expert, Strobel spends at least a few paragraphs extolling the qualifications of his expert, while conveniently neglecting to mention that their doctorate is not in the field of discussion."

    That's what I call good science! (Not! in Borat Accent)
    Well, I will certainly investigate that and weigh that accordingly, nonetheless, facts are facts and just because you feel they lack the qualifications to state them does not preclude reality. I may not be qualified to change a tire, but if I do, it is nonetheless changed and can not be denied.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by DR.D View Post
    lol, read it again! All your examples have a cause. they are all seeded or they wouldn't form smart guy. Thanks for providing even more evidence! Nothing can cause itself.
    "The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because
    the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
    entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
    even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
    In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.

    The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).

    Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994)."

    "Creationists themselves make claims that directly contradict their claims about the second law of thermodynamics, such as hydrological sorting of fossils during the Flood."

  8. Quote Originally Posted by DR.D View Post
    Well, I will certainly investigate that and weigh that accordingly, nonetheless, facts are facts and just because you feel they lack the qualifications to state them does not preclude reality. I may not be qualified to change a tire, but if I do, it is nonetheless changed and can not be denied.
    Who would you rather do open heart surgery on you?
    a) Board Certified Surgeon of 20 years
    b) Joe Schmoe 1st year of med school

  9. Quote Originally Posted by jomi822 View Post
    the problem here is that 1 side is offering an answer, and the other isnt.

    scientists- not sure how the universe was created
    religious tards- god created it

    personally, i am MUCH more comfortable with the scientific lack of explanation than something that is simply made up in a book.

    btw there are dozens of creation stories...what makes the christian one correct???
    My goodness J, you indeed are qualified to speak on the issue of "tards" as you so elequently put it!

  10. Quote Originally Posted by EESCHMan View Post
    Who would you rather do open heart surgery on you?
    a) Board Certified Surgeon of 20 years
    b) Joe Schmoe 1st year of med school
    I would elect (C) the best man for the job! You can emphasize credentials and rightly so, but that can't be the whole basis of your argument. It's simply not always the case.

  11. Quote Originally Posted by DR.D View Post
    My goodness J, you indeed are qualified to speak on the issue of "tards" as you so elequently put it!
    maybe you can teach me to "pulse" m1t while i get started on my tard write up

  12. Quote Originally Posted by DR.D View Post
    I explained that too. Don't follow the church's opinion necessarily. Stop getting Truth and religion confused! God is God, no organization needed, period.
    So you don't have a "religion" you just follow your own drum?
    Truth meaning.....?

    FYI:
    "When the pope came to the subject of the scientific merits of evolution, it soon became clear how much things had changed in the nearly since the Vatican last addressed the issue. John Paul said:


    Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.


    Evolution, a doctrine that Pius XII only acknowledged as an unfortunate possibility, John Paul accepts forty-six years later “as an effectively proven fact.” (ROA, 82)"

  13. [QUOTE=jomi822;843032].

    scientists- not sure how the universe was created
    religious tards- god created it the maturity level is astounding.Being a biology major Id figure you would have something more appropriate to say than that.

    personally, i am MUCH more comfortable with the scientific lack of explanation (so you do have a faith system)than something that is simply made up in a book. like the theory of evolution?
    QUOTE]


    Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths . Proverbs 3:5-6

  14. Quote Originally Posted by DR.D View Post
    I would elect (C) the best man for the job! You can emphasize credentials and rightly so, but that can't be the whole basis of your argument. It's simply not always the case.
    Which would be choice a)

    So you're going to believe those who don't specialize (or have extensive education) in the topics they are discussing, rather than those that have doctorates IN that topic??

  15. Quote Originally Posted by EESCHMan View Post
    "The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because
    the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
    entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
    even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
    In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.

    The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).

    Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994)."

    "Creationists themselves make claims that directly contradict their claims about the second law of thermodynamics, such as hydrological sorting of fossils during the Flood."
    I am speaking of Universal law, not simply planetary conditions. The universe is finite and the Second Law does apply, necessarily. Nothing comes from nothing. Something can NOT come from nothing, not of itself. That's not your personal, everyday observation is it? You seem sensible so be honest with yourself and be sensible. Look, I don't belong to a church, I am not fond or religion either! But don't take it out on reality, please.

  16. Quote Originally Posted by DR.D View Post
    I am speaking of Universal law, not simply planetary conditions. The universe is finite and the Second Law does apply, necessarily. Nothing comes from nothing. Something can NOT come from nothing, not of itself. That's not your personal, everyday observation is it? You seem sensible so be honest with yourself and be sensible. Look, I don't belong to a church, I am not fond or religion either! But don't take it out on reality, please.
    where do your beliefs come from (if not from church/religion)?
    Your parents?

    Apparently, God can come from nothing though...

  17. Quote Originally Posted by EESCHMan View Post
    Which would be choice a)

    So you're going to believe those who don't specialize (or have extensive education) in the topics they are discussing, rather than those that have doctorates IN that topic??
    Hey, I don't specialize! I'm a freakin physicist that only minored it chemistry!! Still, if you go here:

    http://anabolicminds.com/

    You will see my topics and product developments all over the front page, constantly. Does that mean people's gains are only imaginary? Do they just use my stuff to be "nice" to me so my feelings aren't hurt? Or, is it because I know organic medicinal and pharmaceutical chemistry better than 99.9% of the guys here, whether my education would indicate that or not on the surface? I don't know, but the fact remains that the products work and work well regardless if I am qualified to formulate them or not. Does that example help?

  18. Regarding the "evolution hoaxes":

    (Piltdownman Hoax):
    "One hoax cannot indicate the inferiority of conventional archeology, because creationists have several of their own, including Paluxy footprints, the Calaveras skull, Moab and Malachite Man, and others. More telling is how people deal with these hoaxes. When Piltdown was exposed, it stopped being used as evidence. The creationist hoaxes, however, can still be found cited as if they were real. Piltdown has been over and done with for decades, but the dishonesty of creationist hoaxes continues."

  19. Quote Originally Posted by DR.D View Post
    Hey, I don't specialize! I'm a freakin physicist that only minored it chemistry!! Still, if you go here:

    http://anabolicminds.com/

    You will see my topics and product developments all over the front page, constantly. Does that mean people's gains are only imaginary? Do they just use my stuff to be "nice" to me so my feelings aren't hurt? Or, is it because I know organic medicinal and pharmaceutical chemistry better than 99.9% of the guys here, whether my education would indicate that or not on the surface? I don't know, but the fact remains that the products work and work well regardless if I am qualified to formulate them or not. Does that example help?
    and how do you know your "formulations" work?
    Because you can test them, and see results...(science)

    how do you know god created everything?

    No one has answered the Noah's Ark Question (it boggles my mind that people believe this)

  20. Quote Originally Posted by EESCHMan View Post
    where do your beliefs come from (if not from church/religion)?
    Your parents?

    Apparently, God can come from nothing though...
    No! My parents never took me to church. I'm glad too, I may have been turned off to God permanently like most of you are! Church people are often brainwash and crazy, I admit. I AM NOT DEFENDING "RELIGION" only showing the God is supported with science. I told you. I am a scientist. It was part of my studies. I was actually studying alien phenomena about that time.

  21. Quote Originally Posted by DR.D View Post
    Maybe you should learn to read then! I said in the first sentence or two that "religion" had nothing to do with it, and yes, I gave plenty of science. Until you can answer the scientific questions I posed, don't bother dismissing it. Creationism is not a religion, it's an explanation of the observed universe.
    I read quite well thank you. This statement from your treatice refutes your assertion that, and I quote ""religion" had nothing to do with it". I quote you again, "Christ is the only god of any religion that actually died and rose again! The resurrection is the cornerstone of the Christian faith and what really separates Christianity from the rest." It appears that Christianity has everything to do with your position. I quote this additional statement as further evidence, since you felt the need to exclude a differing "creation" story: "Really, it seems like a no-brainer and there are no other satisfactory explanations that match the known facts and laws, unless you believe the Norse legend of creation which involves a hungry giant and a big cow and lots of fire and some other weird stuff like that. (lol)"

    I will anticipate your response and preempt with my statement that Christianity is fine and dandy and I applaud your faith, but don't say your position has nothing to do with religion when it clearly does as evidenced by your own words quoted above. It undermines your credibility.


    I stand by my assertion that "intelligent design" if you will, IS NOT A TESTABLE SCIENTIFIC THEORY. You are free to believe it or not. My discussion has nothing to do with that. It simply does not meet scientific muster. You can quote as many branches of science as you wish, but you offered ZERO data to support any scientific conclusion in your treatice. Statements such as the following quotations from your article are not evidence. In fact, they appear to me to be questions, not answers:

    "How else can you explain order and design?"
    "How then does life develop and thrive when the whole universe is in a state of decay?"
    "Would you really gamble on odds like that?"

    If you are a scientist as you claim, I am at a loss to understand how the preceeding statements would pass muster of any sort in your field of scientific endeavor.

  22. [QUOTE=mmowry;843047]
    Quote Originally Posted by jomi822 View Post
    .

    scientists- not sure how the universe was created
    religious tards- god created it the maturity level is astounding.Being a biology major Id figure you would have something more appropriate to say than that.

    personally, i am MUCH more comfortable with the scientific lack of explanation (so you do have a faith system)than something that is simply made up in a book. like the theory of evolution?
    QUOTE]
    no i dont have a faith based system, i have a fact based system, and a system based on objective observation. not stories or "faith" (which is just fanatic belief in that which cannot be proven).

    evolution is not a theory, its mechanics are.

    and it was not just "made up" in a book. that is like saying thermodynamics or organic chemistry was just made up in a book. these things are based on obversavtion. they have substance

    creation was literally thought up and written on a book....and please dont give me a line about "divine inspiration".

    you are supposed to have supporting facts and observations before you create a scientific theory.

    you cannot just create something out of thin air, and then handpick certain abnormalities and twist science around to support it. this is what is being done wiht this museum. it is an abomination

  23. Quote Originally Posted by EESCHMan View Post
    and how do you know your "formulations" work?
    Because you can test them, and see results...(science)

    how do you know god created everything?

    No one has answered the Noah's Ark Question (it boggles my mind that people believe this)
    Sir, just think outside the box for a second. It was hard for me too. It was the last place I though I would find truth. I am just asking that you reevaluate God, minus your negative preconceptions about the church. I would not come here and say all this if I honestly did not have strong reason to profess. I think the earth is quite old for example, I know about decay chains (my major was nuclear biophysics) I don't agree with a 'young' earth. I still think the Bible works though. I know you hear guys trying to stuff weird theories into their religion to make it fit, that's not AT ALL what I am trying to do. Just offering some very real facts that strongly point to the reality of creationism, thus the existence of God. That's all.

  24. Quote Originally Posted by DR.D View Post
    No! My parents never took me to church. I'm glad too, I may have been turned off to God permanently like most of you are! Church people are often brainwash and crazy, I admit. I AM NOT DEFENDING "RELIGION" only showing the God is supported with science. I told you. I am a scientist. It was part of my studies. I was actually studying alien phenomena about that time.
    I'm curious as to how you came into believing what you believe...

    I wasn't raised religious, and never really even cared about this "stuff" until moving to the south (where you can't go anywhere without it hitting you in the face!)

  25. "Formation of the universe from nothing need not violate conservation of energy. The gravitational potential energy of a gravitational field is a negative energy. When all the gravitational potential energy is added to all the other energy in the universe, it might sum to zero (Guth 1997, 9-12,271-276; Tryon 1973)."
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. What do you eat in the middle of the night?
    By pcn in forum Supplements
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09-18-2005, 10:38 PM
  2. Dbol In The Middle of a Cycle?
    By TheMyth in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-26-2005, 02:54 AM
  3. traveling abroad in the middle of my cycle...
    By LilDon in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-12-2005, 10:44 PM
  4. Holding a 2 second contraction in the middle of rep?
    By TheUsual in forum Training Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-25-2005, 02:17 AM
  5. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-31-2004, 04:30 PM
Log in
Log in